Rolph Houben

Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.

Objectives: Most modern hearing aids use noise reduction to increase listening comfort in noisy environments. However, it is unclear whether perceptual effects (e.g., intelligibility, listening effort, and preference) of noise reduction differ among hearing aids and among listeners. The authors compared perceptual scores across different hearing aid noise-reduction systems to determine (1) whether noise-reduction systems differ perceptually and (2) which factors underlie the overall preference of individual listeners. Design: The authors recorded hearing aid noise-reduction outputs and used these signals in a laboratory experiment. The recording method allowed the evaluation of noise reduction in an isolated form, without the dominant effects of hearing aid frequency response and interactions with dynamic-range compression. Ten normal-hearing subjects listened to speech in babble noise processed by noise reduction from four different hearing aids. The subjects performed (1) speech-intelligibility tests, (2) listening-effort ratings, and (3) paired-comparison ratings with respect to noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. Results: Noise-reduction systems from different hearing aids differed in the degree to which they influenced the noise annoyance and speech naturalness perceived by the normal-hearing listeners. Small differences in intelligibility and effort scores were found among different noise-reduction systems but not between having noise reduction on and off. Subjects differed in whether their overall preference was more strongly related to noise annoyance or to speech naturalness. Conclusions: The authors conclude that noise annoyance and speech naturalness are determining factors for the overall preference of normal-hearing listeners for a specific noise-reduction condition, and found individual differences in the preferred weighting of these factors even in a homogeneous group of normal-hearing listeners. Subsequent experiments should include hearing-impaired subjects to determine whether these conclusions also hold for a more heterogeneous group of listeners. If these results can be extrapolated to hearing-impaired listeners, the fitting and fine-tuning of noise reduction in hearing aids needs considerable revision.

Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort

Abstract Objective: Speech signals that do not differ in intelligibility might differ in listening effort. This study aimed to investigate the effect of background noise on response time to intelligible speech. Design: We added various amounts of stationary noise to spoken digit triplets and measured the influence of noise on the response time for both an identification and an arithmetic task: Task 1 ‘identify the final digit in a triplet’, and Task 2 ‘calculate the sum of the initial and the final digits in a triplet.’ Study sample: Twelve normal-hearing participants with a mean age of 30.6 years (range: 28–44 years). Results: Response time increased with lower (i.e. worse) signal to noise ratios for both tasks, even for signal to noise ratios with almost maximum intelligibility (close to 100%). The response time during the arithmetic task was more affected by the noise than during the identification task, but the arithmetic task demonstrated higher variance. Conclusions: The response time to digit triplets reduces significantly for increasing signal to noise ratios, even where speech intelligibility is optimal. These differences in response time might be related to listening effort and as such might be used to evaluate hearing-aid signal processing at positive SNRs.

Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise

Abstract Objective: A Dutch matrix sentence test was developed and evaluated. A matrix test is a speech-in-noise test based on a closed speech corpus of sentences derived from words from fixed categories. An example is “Mark gives five large flowers.” Design: This report consists of the development of the speech test and a multi-center evaluation. Study sample: Forty-five normal-hearing participants. Results: The developed matrix test has a speech reception threshold in stationary noise of − 8.4 dB with an inter-list standard deviation of 0.2 dB. The slope of the intelligibility function is 10.2 %/dB and this is slightly lower than that of similar tests in other languages (12.6 to 17.1 %/dB). Conclusions: The matrix test is now also available in Dutch and can be used in both Flanders and the Netherlands.

Effects of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Perceived Listening Effort, and Personal Preference in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

This study evaluates the perceptual effects of single-microphone noise reduction in hearing aids. Twenty subjects with moderate sensorineural hearing loss listened to speech in babble noise processed via noise reduction from three different linearly fitted hearing aids. Subjects performed (a) speech-intelligibility tests, (b) listening-effort ratings, and (c) paired-comparison ratings on noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. The perceptual effects of noise reduction differ between hearing aids. The results agree well with those of normal-hearing listeners in a previous study. None of the noise-reduction algorithms improved speech intelligibility, but all reduced the annoyance of noise. The noise reduction that scored best with respect to noise annoyance and preference had the worst intelligibility scores. The trade-off between intelligibility and listening comfort shows that preference measurements might be useful in addition to intelligibility measurements in the selection of noise reduction. Additionally, this trade-off should be taken into consideration to create realistic expectations in hearing-aid users.

Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech

Time-frequency masking is a method for noise reduction that is based on the time-frequency representation of a speech in noise signal. Depending on the estimated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), each time-frequency unit is either attenuated or not. A special type of a time-frequency mask is the ideal binary mask (IBM), which has access to the real SNR (ideal). The IBM either retains or removes each time-frequency unit (binary mask). The IBM provides large improvements in speech intelligibility and is a valuable tool for investigating how different factors influence intelligibility. This study extends the standard outcome measure (speech intelligibility) with additional perceptual measures relevant for noise reduction: listening effort, noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. Four types of time-frequency masking were evaluated: the original IBM, a tempered version of the IBM (called ITM) which applies limited and non-binary attenuation, and non-ideal masking (also tempered) with two different types of noise-estimation algorithms. The results from ideal masking imply that there is a trade-off between intelligibility and sound quality, which depends on the attenuation strength. Additionally, the results for non-ideal masking suggest that subjective measures can show effects of noise reduction even if noise reduction does not lead to differences in intelligibility.

Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids

PURPOSE Noise reduction and dynamic-range compression are generally applied together in hearing aids but may have opposite effects on amplification. This study evaluated the acoustical and perceptual effects of separate and combined processing of noise reduction and compression. DESIGN Recordings of the output of 4 hearing aids for speech in babble noise at +4 dB signal-to-noise ratio were used in 3 experiments: (a) acoustical measurements to determine the influence of processing on speech and noise levels; (b) perceptual measurements to determine the detectability of processing differences for 16 listeners with hearing impairment; and (c) perceptual measurements to determine the effect of processing on speech intelligibility, noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. RESULTS Noise reduction and compression processing differed between hearing aids. The combined processing (noise reduction with compression) most strongly reduced noise and speech levels. The combined processing was detectably different between hearing aids, but compression processing alone was not. The combined processing did not influence speech intelligibility. Preference for combined processing was lower than previously observed for noise reduction without compression. CONCLUSIONS Differences in processing between hearing aids are perceptually salient. The effect of compression should be taken into account during the development and evaluation of hearing aid noise reduction.

Investigation into the applicability and optimization of the Dutch matrix sentence test for use with cochlear implant users

Abstract Objective: Matrix sentence tests use words from a fixed word matrix to compose syntactically equivalent, but semantically unpredictable sentences. These tests are suitable for monitoring performance of cochlear implant (CI) users by repeated speech intelligibility testing. This study evaluates the Dutch matrix sentence test in CI users in quiet and in noise. It then investigates the possibility to improve the test-retest reliability for CI users by selecting subsets of sentences. Design: Repeated speech intelligibility testing was performed in quiet and in noise. The effect of sentence selection on the test-retest reliability was predicted by computer simulations and experimentally evaluated using a cross-over design. Study sample: Fifteen post-lingually deafened CI users, of which eleven participated in the cross-over study. Results: The test-retest reliability equaled 2.3 dB in quiet and 1.3 dB in noise. The simulations predicted an improvement in test-retest reliability, especially in quiet. The cross-over study did not confirm the predictions. Conclusions: The results of the study suggest that the homogeneity of the sentences is not the prime component underlying the test-retest reliability. The Dutch matrix speech material and the selected subsets of sentences were equally suitable for speech intelligibility testing in CI users.

The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners

Single-microphone noise reduction leads to subjective benefit, but not to objective improvements in speech intelligibility. We investigated whether response times (RTs) provide an objective measure of the benefit of noise reduction and whether the effect of noise reduction is reflected in rated listening effort. Twelve normal-hearing participants listened to digit triplets that were either unprocessed or processed with one of two noise-reduction algorithms: an ideal binary mask (IBM) and a more realistic minimum mean square error estimator (MMSE). For each of these three processing conditions, we measured (a) speech intelligibility, (b) RTs on two different tasks (identification of the last digit and arithmetic summation of the first and last digit), and (c) subjective listening effort ratings. All measurements were performed at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs): −5, 0, +5, and +∞ dB. Speech intelligibility was high (>97% correct) for all conditions. A significant decrease in response time, relative to the unprocessed condition, was found for both IBM and MMSE for the arithmetic but not the identification task. Listening effort ratings were significantly lower for IBM than for MMSE and unprocessed speech in noise. We conclude that RT for an arithmetic task can provide an objective measure of the benefit of noise reduction. For young normal-hearing listeners, both ideal and realistic noise reduction can reduce RTs at SNRs where speech intelligibility is close to 100%. Ideal noise reduction can also reduce perceived listening effort.

Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Hearing-aid noise reduction should reduce background noise, but not disturb the target speech. This objective is difficult because noise reduction suffers from a trade-off between the amount of noise removed and signal distortion. It is unknown if this important trade-off differs between normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. This study separated the negative effect of noise reduction (distortion) from the positive effect (reduction of noise) to allow the measurement of the detection threshold for noise-reduction (NR) distortion. Twelve NH subjects and 12 subjects with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. The detection thresholds for distortion were determined using an adaptive procedure with a three-interval, two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Different levels of distortion were obtained by changing the maximum amount of noise reduction. Participants were also asked to indicate their preferred NR strength. The detection threshold for overall distortion was higher for HI subjects than for NH subjects, suggesting that stronger noise reduction can be applied for HI listeners without affecting the perceived sound quality. However, the preferred NR strength of HI listeners was closer to their individual detection threshold for distortion than in NH listeners. This implies that HI listeners tolerate fewer audible distortions than NH listeners.

A Method to Remove Differences in Frequency Response Between Commercial Hearing Aids to Allow Direct Comparison of the Sound Quality of Hearing-Aid Features

Goal: We want to remove differences in frequency response between different commercial hearing aids so that we can compare the sound quality of signal processing features from different hearing-aid in a future paired-comparison set-up. More specifically, we want to control for the confounding effects of the linear hearing aid response when evaluating nonlinear processing. This article presents a control procedure and evaluates its effectiveness. Method: We increased the similarity of hearing-aid recordings in three steps and used both an objective quality metric and listening tests to investigate if the recordings from different hearing aids were perceptually similar. Results: Neither was it sufficient to manually adjust the hearing-aid insertion gain, nor was it sufficient to add an additional bandwidth limitation to the recordings. Only after the application of an inverse filter the perceptual differences between recordings were removed adequately. Conclusion: It was possible to level the ground between different hearing devices, so to speak. This will allow future research to evaluate the sound quality of nonlinear signal processing features.